Re: Question
From: Gary Shannon (gary_at_fiziwig.com)
Date: 03/12/04
- Next message: Alexis Machado: "Re: Countering chosen-plaintext attacks"
- Previous message: Gary Shannon: "Re: low tech encryption, solitaire"
- In reply to: James Davis: "Question"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Question"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 03:38:24 GMT
"James Davis" <math-man@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A9CF667914Emathmanhoustonrrcom@24.93.43.121...
> This may sound foolish, but I am new to cryptography and wish to know
more.
>
> I have two questions:
>
> 1-Is it possible to make a foolproof code?
> 2-Has this ever been done?
>
> If these things could be expained to me in detail, I would be
appreciative.
"Foolproof" is a hard term to define. A perfectly secure code can be made
using a truely random key that is at least as long as the message and is
never used again. This method is called the "one-time pad".
It is uncrackable if used properly, BUT any fool can ruin it by either using
the same key more than once or letting the key fall into enemy hands. So
it's not foolproof. Plus it is very difficult to exchange these long keys
with the person who is to receive your message. If you have a way to
exchange such a long key securely then why not just exchange the message
itself that same way?
So there is a code that is unbreakable but impractical. So the answer is,
yes it has been done, but nobody uses it because it's too hard to implement
securely, and too hard to distribute the keys and keep them safe.
--gary
- Next message: Alexis Machado: "Re: Countering chosen-plaintext attacks"
- Previous message: Gary Shannon: "Re: low tech encryption, solitaire"
- In reply to: James Davis: "Question"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Question"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|